文章 - - 文章列表 - 推荐阅读

人愛做夢，做出版的人卻總想把夢變成真實，把作者的手稿排成鉛字，把知識變成有質感的書本，把書本編成叢書，精神轉成物質，學問形成體系。說起來，這其實仍然是一個夢想。一九八八年董秀玉來香港三聯，那時我叫她董大姐，有幸跟她做出版，一做也快三十年了。

从某种意义上说，正是在类似布满了裂隙社会语境之中，90年代的中国都市悄然涌动着一种浓重的怀旧情调。而作为当下中国重要的文化现实之一，与其说，这是一种思潮或潜流，是对急剧推进的现代化、商业化进程的抗拒，不如说，它更多地作为一种时尚；与其说，它是来自精英知识分子的书写，不如说，它更多是一脉不无优雅的市声；怀旧的表象至为"恰当"地成为一种魅人的商品包装，成为一种流行文化。

当前大部分关于地缘政治的讨论，均设想我们只能在单边主义和多边主义这两种维持全球秩序的策略之间作出抉择。

我讀「異域」是在高中時，作者署名鄧克保(1961年出版)，那時他大概還沒有開始使用柏楊的筆名。書是外省同學借給我看的，再三囑咐我不得外傳，怕惹禍上身，因書裡寫從台灣派去的高級軍官，利用美援（美元），在曼谷過花天酒地的的生活，蔣介石擔心影響台灣軍心，因此查禁。

一方面，我还是期待这个社会能够存在许许多多自主的、饱满的创作心灵以及相应的作品；另一方面，我也期待这些作品在社会上能够恰当地被群众所接收，被喜闻乐见。

教到第二年，就是1950年的夏天，6月，这个女中刚刚考过学期考试要放假了，又来了一批当地的，彰化的警察局，我先生是被左萦的海军抓走的，这是当地的彰化警察局，这一次来，就把整个我们的宿舍，校长她的那个同学，还有我都带走了还不说，这个学校里面的另外的六个老师一起抓进去了，所以你们不知道台湾属于白色恐怖，所以那时候抓了好多人。

危机分析人士将银行业和金融市场的灾难作为自己的起点，这可以理解。但问题在于他们没能将话题引向深入。从财政部长鲍尔森到美联储主席伯南克往下，他们都认为可以将这场危机简单地当做金融业的问题来解释。同时，他们声称深层次的实体经济还是强固的，所谓的经济基础还是完好的。这种观点最能误导人。导致眼下危机的根源在于1973年，尤其是2000年以来，发达经济体经济活力的下降。

2009年2月，清华大学公共管理学院教授崔之元在共青团北京市委主管的《文化纵横》发表文章《重新认识“社会主义市场经济”的经济学含义》，以“浦东逻辑”、“重庆经验”、“香港实验”、“阿拉斯加模式”等案例提出新论，政府通过国有形式，实现国有资产盈利，以国有资产的盈利丰盈政府收入，有更大的空间和能力降低对私人企业的税收，从而促进私人经济的发展。在接受CBN记者采访时，崔之元进一步阐发了有关论点。

当代政治危机的核心是与政治体制相应的社会形式发生了解体。政治合法性的危机主要来源于政治体制的代表性断裂，即政治形式与社会形式的脱节。在讨论"代表性断裂"这一政治危机及其诸特征之前，有必要分析这一"脱节"或"断裂"在两种社会体制中是如何构成的。

西蒙·玻利瓦尔青年交响乐团仅不过是委内瑞拉众多杰出青年乐团中的一个代表，而它成功背后所展示出的，则是一项极为令人震撼、钦佩、赞叹与感动的，用音乐改变年轻人命运的伟大工程--"音乐救助计划"，也就是在这个计划的倡导下，委内瑞拉掀起了一场历时30多年的"音乐改变人生命运的革命"。

作为一名人文学人，从18岁进入复旦求学之后的一些经验教训。希望我的总结、反思和前瞻。对各位同仁，特别是正踏上求学之路的同学们，有所助益。

我不想追寻那些秘密，我想我已经领悟了他的遗嘱：不论世道如何，处境如何，都要坚持做正直的人、善良的人、能吃能喝的人、敢笑敢骂的人。

毛尖是电视剧爱好者，准确说是主旋律电视剧爱好者。写过电影评论集《慢慢微笑》的毛尖，现在谈电视剧、研究电视剧远多过电影了，从她不停为海内外朋友推荐、寄送电视剧碟片可见一斑。国产主旋律电视剧，相对应于韩剧、日剧、美剧，毛尖认为"国产剧"的品牌效应也在持续效应，而在国产电影不作为的年代，毛尖说，"我们都把梦想和热情投给了国产连续剧。"记者：石剑峰这几年收视率最高的电视剧，相当一部分是主旋律，既有现代戏《士兵突击》，也有战争戏《亮剑》等，它们的重播率也非常高，甚至把一些日韩和中国的台港偶像剧都比下去了。根据您的观察，怎么会有那么多人对这一题材电视剧感兴趣？毛尖：关于这个问题，《士兵突击》的导演康红雷有一个说法很好。他说，一天到晚搞一帮男人进出酒店吃西餐，有什么意思！所以，从类型剧的角度讲，日韩和中国的港台西餐剧看多了，《士兵突击》、《亮剑》这类中餐剧当然会有收视率和重播率。其次，从意识形态角度看，《士兵突击》、《亮剑》对于中国观众的亲和力，至今都被低估。一般认为，现代人生活这么累，看电视，也就图一个"眼睛吃冰淇淋，心灵坐沙发椅"，但事实上，《士兵突击》也好，《亮剑》也好，天南地北引发滚滚收视，因为他们既刺中了时弊，也唤醒了记忆：我们曾经而且现在也可以活得多么有精气神！所以，在这个意义上讲，《士兵突击》、《亮剑》都超越了军旅题材，再用康红雷的话说，拍许三多、拍他的战友，是为了表达"最中国"的东西。去年，我们和王晓明、倪文尖等一起讨论过中国连续剧的"中国气息"和"时代之痛"，也是特别感觉此类中国连续剧的"中国性"。至少在我看来，在日剧、韩剧、美剧的品牌效应之后，"国产剧"也有了品牌效应，而且这个效应还在持续发酵。反正，国产电影不作为的年代，我们都把梦想和热情投给了国产连续剧。人心低迷的时代，我们需要黄金甲，还是钢七连，谁都看得出来。不知道您是否对各类型电视剧的收看群体有过研究，是否存在一种分化，年轻人看偶像剧时尚剧，另一批人看主旋律？毛尖：主旋律和偶像剧、时尚剧不可能泾渭分明，尤其近两年，我们一次又一次看到这种界限被打破，而且这种趋势还会越来越彰显。比如《士兵突击》就是一例，它可以是革命传统剧，也可以是励志剧；然后呢，《士兵突击》可以励志，《杜拉拉升职记》也可以励志，虽然同时它又是偶像剧、时尚剧、办公室剧；再然后呢，《杜拉拉升职记》是办公室剧，《潜伏》也是办公室剧，虽然我们更愿意在革命谍战剧范围内讨论《潜伏》。主旋律在变，偶像剧也在变。我感觉，接下来会是一个主旋律和偶像剧合流的时代，湖南卫视的《恰同学少年》就是例子，做得不好就是《风华正茂》这种快男快女穿军装。当然，话说回来，这种合流也不是今天的潮流，半个世纪前，它本就是革命题材影视剧的旧传统，杨子荣不曾经是我们的偶像？阿庆嫂不也是一代风流？回到概念问题，到底什么是主旋律电视剧？您怎么界定主旋律？毛尖：关于主旋律，我觉得刘恒的说法可以参照。刘恒是张艺谋《菊豆》、《秋菊打官司》的编剧，也为冯小刚写了《集结号》的剧本。在新世纪，他写了四部主旋律的剧本。提到为什么会做主旋律电影，他说："除了征服观众和征服自己以外，我以为一个更大的目的是征服敌人，这个敌人是广义的敌人，包括意识形态的敌人。我们要对他们说，你说你们的价值观不错，我说我们的价值观也不差。"刘恒说"我们的价值观也不差"，语气还是软弱了点，不过，通俗地说，表现我们的主流价值观，表现我们价值观的导向，或者说期望，就属于主旋律。而我们的价值观，上到社会主义，下到人民美食，都是。而说到主旋律连续剧，一般人都会直接联想到革命历史剧，或者反腐倡廉题材，但主旋律连续剧的类型很多，最好的例子当然是二十年前的《渴望》。《渴望》不讲革命，也不直接谈政治，但它显然是不折不扣的主旋律作品，就像制片人郑晓龙说的，文艺作品的主题就是传播真善美，鞭笞假丑恶。《渴望》没有更高的主旋律，就是讲述普通老百姓的善良和美丽，与群众特别近。《渴望》完了以后，当时总结过"三贴近"：贴近生活、贴近百姓、贴近观众。这个三贴近，至今还是电视剧的最重要法宝。在很多人的观念里，谈到主旋律电视剧就要跟社会主义、信仰等革命话语联系起来，在当下，您怎么看两者之间的关系？毛尖：主旋律电视剧和社会主义、革命信仰的关联，本来就是题中应有之义，但不是说，社会主义、信仰等等就是主旋律电视剧的全部内容。至于两者的关系，这么说吧，譬如现在都谈商品化、消费主义，主旋律电影，当然是要反商品化、反消费主义的，但常常，一个反消费主义、反商品化的电视剧没做好"二反"，反而宣传了商品和消费，就像《金瓶梅》。这在我们的影像历史中也很常见，类似阮玲玉的苦情戏却招来了小姐太太带着裁缝去看阮玲玉的旗袍式样。这个时候，再来看革命题材影视剧中的信仰表达，就比较有意义了。最近几年，《潜伏》、《人间正道是沧桑》这些电视剧，用高音表现了革命信仰，如此纯净又高亢的表达，大概也只有这种题材的连续剧能做到。在一个犬儒和虚无盛行的年代，他们展示的"信仰之美"，包括这个信仰在年轻人中间的接受度，在我看来，是我们这个国家青春气质的源头。自1980年代以来，主旋律电视剧一直是中国电视屏幕上重要的播放内容，如今的主旋律电视剧跟二三十年前的主旋律电视剧相比，在功能上有哪些差异？毛尖：用当年《渴望》创作班底的话来说，以前拍主旋律，主要是为了个"暖和"，暖和老百姓；对电视剧制作人员来说，则是"过把瘾"，但现在不一样了。电视剧在整个社会中的结构性功能和过去已经不能同日而语。二三十年前，看电视剧，包括主旋律，主要还是父母辈的生活。就我个人来说吧，除了看王朔参与编剧的《编辑部的故事》、《海马歌舞厅》，我很少看连续剧，《还珠格格》这样低幼的不会看，清宫剧也不看，白领剧也不看。那个年代，文艺青年还是社会中的清新力量，而作为文艺青年，我们基本只谈电影。电视编剧，那不能跟小说家比。电视剧不登大雅之堂，搞得一般小说家去写剧本，都有点偷偷摸摸，意思有点"下海"。那时候，电影还是电视剧膜拜的对象、学习的榜样、前进的方向。但现在，一切都不同了，电视剧不仅成为人民娱乐的主体，也接管了电影的全部功能。也就是说，过去我们通过电影来解读意识形态，现在我们通过电视剧。"中国电视剧"已经是海内外著名品牌，中国电影则可以死了。这些年，我至少帮朋友买过十套以上的《激情燃烧的岁月》、《暗算》等连续剧，与此同时呢，《赵氏孤儿》这种大片也好，《画壁》这种小片也好，白送都没人要。其实，现在的电影和电视已经不在一个影像语境中。我用最近大热的《失恋33天》来解释。滕华涛是电视剧出身，拍过《蜗居》、《王贵与安娜》等，他进电影圈，被腐朽的电影圈看不起，说是"又来了个搞电视剧的"。但是，八百九十万的制作，创下三亿的票房，又眼馋死了电影圈，搞得还有著名导演在网上说怪话，觉得这样的电视电影能创票房简直是二十年目睹之怪现状。可我的观察是，《失恋３３天》这样的电视剧题材和拍法能够完胜大银幕，说明电影已经腐朽到没有一丝抵抗力。我的预测是，一个电视进军电影的时代即将到来，这会是一个比较激动人心的影像新时代。所以您这些年坚持一个观点，中国电视剧比电影好，电视剧比电影值得看。毛尖：现在的电视剧比电影好，不是中国的独特现象。十来年前，饭桌上交流碟报，宝爷说他已经不看电影，只看美剧，当时我们还觉得他是噱头。可是看看这几年，所谓影迷，指的已经常常是电视剧迷了。电视剧比电影值得看，不光是电视剧中有真生活真人生，而且现在的电视剧普遍比电影更有承担更有思考。比如，拿了奥斯卡奖的《拆弹部队》对战争的思考，还是庸俗人道主义，导演凯瑟琳·毕格罗竟然还号称这是一部"与政治无关"的电影，相比之下，《24小时》中，我们还能特别正面地听到反美的恐怖分子谴责美国的国家英雄杰克·鲍尔："你们侵略我们的国家，还把这种侵略叫做正义！"所以，《电影手册》评价《24小时》说：这部连续剧自觉地承担了美国故事片沿革中的历史责任，这种责任，在今天的好莱坞已经完全找不到了。几乎是一样的结构，中国很多电影的情感结构是毕格罗式的，比如南京大屠杀能拍成《南京！南京！》，就是好莱坞人道主义的胜利，活生生把一场帝国主义的侵略战争拍成一场人类的弱点之战，不仅为鬼子做影像粉饰，还为他们做哲学超度。相比之下，抗战连续剧多么激动人心，无论是前面说到的《亮剑》，还是《我的团长我的团》、《雪豹》、《永不磨灭的番号》，虽然都问题多多，可都鼓荡着中华民族的元气，有国家，有人民，有革命，有信仰，看着就爽。我们可以看到，这类主旋律电视剧与文学文本关系非常密切，编剧很多是写作出身，或者他们从小说改编，您怎么看他们两者之间关系？毛尖： 先不管主旋律，影视和文学的关系，一向就纠结。这方面，希区柯克的经验比较准确，改编二三流的小说，比较容易出好电影。最近《失恋33天》那么火，它原来的文本就是豆瓣的一个热门帖。相比之下，王安忆的《长恨歌》、张爱玲的《倾城之恋》都是好小说，但改编成电影电视剧，就比例不对，感情不对。影像需要一个"物质基础"，小说读者可以靠想象补全，影视观众则要现货，所以，电视剧《红楼梦》被网络称为"红雷梦"，首先就因为演员姿色跟不上。所以，越是好的小说，那部分被想象补足的东西越难物质化，也就越难影视化。而说回主旋律影视剧，我的感觉，你问的，还主要是革命题材影视剧。我们也说实在话，那些影视剧的小说产品，无论是先于电视剧的还是后于电视剧的，常常也就是个通俗读物，但这些通俗读物，有一个很大的好处，就是动作多，东西多，所以符合连续剧的物质要求。可是我们的影视工作者总会遇到一些限制，今天这类电视剧不能在黄金时段播，明天那类总播放时间不能超过多少等。现在又有限娱令，这类限制也会对主旋律影视剧创作有些影响，无论正面还是负面。毛尖：我虽然是不赞成用限娱令的方式来治理电视台，这是知己知彼的反面，彼此没有想象力的做法，但我们也得承认，这种限制也有横竖横的悲情。说到底，现在低俗节目已经多到我们看AV女郎都觉得蛮纯洁的地步了。其实呢，限娱令也不是今天才有，广电总局真威风过吗？反正，道高一尺，魔高一丈，限娱令肯定会招来一大批更狡猾的羊皮狼。至于限娱令对主旋律影视剧的影响，我们从正面说，应该是有好处的，非诚勿扰一个星期只能播三次，那么，主旋律应该更有天地喽。但问题是，主旋律不是靠多时段播放或反复播放来变成主旋律的，而长时间的播放更可能伤害主旋律，逆反还是其次，反了就悲剧了。天天主旋律，就算放的是《潜伏》这么好看的主旋律，《还珠格格》也会成为新的影像革命。如果说主旋律电视剧的一个重要功能是爱国主义教育或者说是道德教化，这一功能其实在美剧中也有体现的。您怎么看美剧中的道德教化功能尤其是美剧中的美式爱国主义教育？毛尖：美国的爱国主义教育是做得最好的，美剧当然也承担了这个功能，而且，随着美剧观众的增加，美剧的教化功能更加无远弗届了。这方面，真是值得我们学习。比如，上世纪九十年代风靡中国的《成长的烦恼》，我们看到人家父母面对孩子的第一次约会，父母给的第一次性教育，简直要热泪盈眶。这一个热泪盈眶不要紧，美国意识形态就软着陆了。弄到现在，中国人搞恋爱，泡酒吧吃西餐，摆泰坦尼克的姿势，穿斯巴达克的衣裳，加上教堂、加上十字架，光看背影你能认出是自己人算你识货。不要以为爱国主义教育就是喊喊我爱你祖国，所谓管住男人先管住他的胃，爱国主义是具体的，包括爱祖国的风土人情，爱祖国的吃喝玩乐。美剧中，人家有吃着我们的包子说我爱你吗？美国人才不肯把这样的好事给我们，可我们多帮衬人家啊，从西海岸到东海岸，美国一直在我们的影像中，汉堡比包子多，酒吧比茶馆多，美剧的爱"美"教育叫一个润物细无声啊。这个真不用多说了，看看骆家辉就能明白美国人多会做爱国主义营销。 

重庆之行，让弗格森得出了一个与自己曾经的观点截然相反的结论———中国经济的发展已经转到内需上来。重庆一年修5座长江大桥，这完全是靠内需拉动的行为。

在现存文字材料里，"中国"一词最早出现在铸成于西周前期的著名青铜器"何尊"的铭文内。在其中，周成王追溯他父亲武王的话说："余其宅兹中国"

我们对“高等研究”的理解是既立足于现存学科而又超越之。当今的社会科学各学科固然都是西方的舶来品，但它们已经积累了大量的理论和经验研究；在今天的全球化世界现实之下，中国学者和学生们必须了解并掌握其已有成果。在这方面，我们的观点和现存院系是基本一致的。 但我们还有更高要求。

"表里"、"并用"或"互补"的说法只承认两者一体或同在，但没有指出为什么两者可能一体或同在。由于放弃了探讨儒表法里现象的理论逻辑，隐含地也就否认了儒家(或法家)本身作为一个有解说力之理论的可能性。

福柯 ： 人们常说这样的话：当代音乐偏离了正轨，它的命运非常奇特，它复杂到如此的地步以致于不可接近，它的技巧使它走上了一条不归路。但另一方面，音乐吸引我的地方在于它与其他文化要素之间的多样复杂的关系。这一点从不同的角度来看都是很明显的。一方面，音乐对技术的进步非常敏感，它对技术的依赖性比其他艺术门类要大得多(也许电影是个例外)。另一方面，从德彪西和斯特拉文斯基之后的音乐发展同绘画的发展有很多密切相关之处。此外，音乐为自身提出的理论问题，它对自身的语言、结构、材料的反思方式，取决于一个在20世纪具有普遍意义的问题："形式"的问题。这个问题在塞尚((Cezanne)、立体主义者、勋伯格(Schoenberg)、俄国形式主义者或是布拉格学派那里都是存在的。 我认为我们不应该问：既然音乐已经走得如此之远，我们怎么才能再度体验和重新享有它?而应该问：这个音乐与我们所有的文化如此接近，如此一体化，我们怎么会觉得与它如此疏异、与它有如此不可逾越的距离呢? 布列兹 ： 是不是因为当代音乐的"流通"与交响音乐、室内乐、歌剧、巴罗克音乐的"流通"大不一样?后者的"流通"是很专门化和局部化的，会使人怀疑是否真的有一种总体的文化。唱片摧垮了这些藩篱，但是我们要注意，唱片另一方面又增强了公众和演奏者的专业化。古典或浪漫音乐意味着一个标准化的格式。巴罗克音乐不仅要求一个有限的群体，还要乐器与所演奏的音乐相配，要求演奏家掌握通过对古代的音乐作品和理论著作进行研究所获得的专业知识。当代音乐要求掌握新的乐器技巧，新的记谱方法，对新的演奏形式的适应。凡此种种，不胜枚举，足以表明从音乐的这个领域跨越到另一个领域有多么困难：组织的困难，把自己置于不同的情境中的困难，更不用说适应为不同的演奏而设的场所的困难了。于是，出现了这样的倾向，出现了适应不同种类的音乐的或大或小的群体，在社会及其音乐和演奏家中建立了危险的封闭的流通。当代音乐无法逃避这种发展，它无法逃避一般音乐社会的缺陷：它有它的地盘、它的聚会、它的明星、它的趋炎附势者、它的竞争对手、它的排他性；正如其他社会一样，它有市场价值、报价、盈利计算。不同的音乐圈子也就像监狱体制一样，绝大多数人在其中感到平安无事，但是他们却对别人进行痛苦的折磨。 福柯 ： 我们必须考虑到这样的事实，在很长一段时期内，音乐是为社会的祭祀和仪式而设的：宗教音乐，室内乐；在19世纪，音乐与剧院之间的纽带是歌剧(更不用提歌剧在德国和意大利的政治和文化意义了)，这也是一个凝聚性的因素。 我认为，如果谈起当代音乐的"文化隔绝"的话，在考察其他音乐的流通之后，我们马上就会要修正前面的说法。 拿摇滚乐来说吧，我们马上就有了完全相反的印象。摇滚音乐(比爵士乐从前的情形更厉害)不仅是许多人生活中不可分割的一部分，而且是文化的一种推动力：喜爱摇滚，喜爱这一类而不是那一类的摇滚，这也是一种生活方式，一种对社会作出反应的态度；这是一整套的趣味和态度。 摇滚乐紧张、强壮、生动、充满"戏剧性"(摇滚总是把自己弄得多彩多姿，听摇滚是一个事件，而且发生在舞台上)，这种音乐本身是贫弱的，但是倾听它的人却能从中达到对自己的肯定；但是，在那种复杂的音乐面前，人们感到脆弱、遥远、充满了问题，好似被排斥在外。 我们无法谈论当代文化与音乐的普遍的单一关系，而是应该更加宽容，对音乐的多重性采取一种多多少少是亲善的态度。每一类音乐都有"权利"生存，这种权利可以视为价值的平等。每一类音乐的价值都取决于实践并喜爱它的人的认可。 布列兹 ： 这样来谈论音乐的多重性是不是具有一种折衷主义的色彩?能够解决问题吗?正相反，这是把问题掩盖起来了--就像某些致力于激进自由社会的人所做的那样。所有这些音乐都是好的，它们都很棒。啊!多元主义！它对缺乏理解的人来说真是太妙了。爱情，每个人在自己的角落，但是都会爱他人。做自由主义者吧，对他人的趣味要宽容，他们反过来也会这样对待你的。一切都是好的，没有坏的东西；价值不再有了，但是每个人都会幸福。诸如此类的话语，尽管他们希望具有解放的作用，却只会相反地增强自己的隔绝状态，为自己的隔绝状态感到宽慰，特别是当自己看到了别人的隔绝状态之后。这种机制提醒我们不要迷失在这种肤浅的乌托邦中：有些音乐是为了赚钱和带来商业利益而存在的；有些音乐则要花费钱，与赢利的观念毫不相干。任何自由主义也抹杀不了这种界限。 福柯 ： 我有这样的印象，许多帮助人们接近音乐的工具到头来削弱了我们与音乐的关系。这里有一个大而复杂的机制在起作用。如果很难接触到音乐，那倒能保护人们选择音乐的能力，也带来了倾听音乐时的灵活性。但是如果更加频繁地接触音乐(电台、唱片、卡带)，对音乐越熟悉，习惯就凝固下来了；最经常出现的变成最能够接受的，最后只有一种保留下来。这导致了某种"追踪"，这是一种神经病症。 显然，市场的法则很容易运用到这种简单的机制之中。产品投放到大众之中，大众就倾听。大众发现自己在听某一类东西，因为提供的就是这种东西，这又强化了某种趣味，划定出一块规定得很好的听觉空间，制订出越来越专门化的倾听计划。而音乐则必须满足这种期待，等等。因此商业产品、评论、音乐会，所有这些增强公众与音乐的关系的东西都使人感到，要接受一种新的音乐是越来越困难了。 当然，这一过程也并不是十分确定的。对音乐的不断熟悉也会增强倾听音乐的能力，从而导致对多样性的选择；但这有可能不会很普遍，只是少数的情形，如果我们不努力地将熟悉性疏异化的话。 毫无疑问，我并不赞成减少与音乐的关系，但是要知道，这种关系如果具有了一种日常生活的色彩，再加上经济的法则凌驾其上，就能把传统僵化。并不是说要更少地接触音乐，而是要把它的频繁出现从习惯和熟悉性中拉过来。 布列兹 ： 听众对当代音乐真的缺乏注意和漠不关心吗？这种经常出现的抱怨是不是出于懒惰和习惯于舒适地呆在熟知的领域?贝尔格在半个多世纪前就写过一篇文章，题为《为什么勋伯格的音乐很难理解?》，他描述的困难同我们现在碰到的几乎一模一样。难道情形一点都没有改变吗?也许，所有的创新都会挫伤对之不习惯的人的感觉。但是如今作品向大众的传播带来了特定的困难。古典和浪漫派的音乐构成了人们熟知的主要的曲目资源，它们遵循一定的程式，人们对之的欣赏可以相对独立于单独的作品来进行。交响曲的乐章是根据其形式、特性和节奏形态来划分的，它们彼此区别开来，绝大多数乐章之间有实际的停顿，或者是明显的过渡。交响乐的语言建立在"分类的"和弦的基础之上，它们都有很好的名字，你不用分析就知道这些和弦是什么，发挥怎样的功能。它们像讯号那样富有功效和稳妥可靠；它们在这个作品中出现，又在那个作品中出现，每一次出现都带着同样的功能。逐渐地，这些令人感到宽慰的要素逐渐从"严肃"音乐中消失了。音乐的进化朝着不间断的、越来越彻底的更新的道路上发展，既包括作品的形式，也包括作品的语言。音乐作品变成了独一无二的事件，它并非完全不能让人预料，但是却不服从任何先决的、人们认可的指导体系；这当然带来了人们理解上的障碍。它要求听者熟悉作品的进程，为了达到这一点，就必须把它听上很多遍。当人们对作品的进程熟悉的时候，对作品的理解、对作品所表达的内容的感知就会开花结果。如今，初次的倾听是越来越难带来对作品的感觉和理解了。可能对作品会有自然而然的反应，通过语句的力量，美妙的音色，某些可以理解的暗示性的语句。但是深刻的理解只能通过反复的倾听来实现，通过再现音乐的进程，这种重复代替了以往那种普遍认同的范式。 这种以往的范式--语汇的和形式的--从所谓的严肃音乐中撤退出来，到某些大众流行样式中去避难，成为音乐消费的对象。在那里，创作仍然是按照特定的样式和人们所接受的形态来进行的。保守主义并不总在人们期待的地方出现：无可否认，某些保守的音乐形式和语言构成了所有商业化音乐的基础，而狂热接受这种音乐的一代人最不想要的也就是保守主义了。这是我们时代的悖论，抗议者的歌唱通过的是受到贿赂的语言，商业的成功使得抗议显得空洞无物。 福柯 ： 在这一点上，20世纪的音乐和绘画还有另一个不同的演化方向。从塞尚以来，绘画倾向于把自己创造的行为本身公之于众：这种行为是可见的、惹人注目的、在作品中确定无疑地表露出来，无论是通过使用要素性的标记，或者是通过对自身运动的追踪。正相反，当代音乐提供给听众的只是它结构的外表。 这样，在听这种音乐的时候，产生了既困难又迫切的问题。每一次倾听都把自己表现为一个事件，听者关注它，而且必须接受它。没有任何暗示让听者作某种期待和确认。他听着它发生。这是一种非常困难的倾听模式，同重复听古典音乐带来的那种熟悉感是非常矛盾的。 今日音乐的文化隔绝状态并不简单是教育和传播的缺乏引起的。光是抱怨音乐学院或唱片公司是 很容易的。情况比这严重得多。当代音乐发展到这样一种独一无二的处境，要归咎于其作品。在此意义上，它是有意要这样做的。这种音乐不想让人们熟悉。它就是要用这种方式来保持自己的优势。我们能重复它，但是它不重复自己。在这个意义上说，人们不能把它当做一个物体来返回它。它永远突兀在边界线上。 布列兹 ： 既然它渴望永不停歇的开拓和发现--新的情感领域，试验新的材料--当代音乐注定了是一个堪察加半岛(还记得波德莱尔和圣佩甫吗?)，供罕见的探险者满足他们无畏的好奇心吗?要知道，最谨严的听众是在往日的音乐商店中获得他们专有的音乐文化的，而且是特定的往日。而最开放的听众--是不是因为他们最无知呢?--则对其他的表现方式有持续的兴趣，特别是造型艺术。"陌生者"最能接受?一个危险的结合将表明现在的音乐将从"真正的"音乐文化中死去，为的是在更广大和更含混的领域中得到一席之地，在那里业余爱好占主导地位，审美变成消遣。别把这称作"音乐"--只要你别把它称为音乐，随你怎么去玩都行；那属于不同的欣赏领域，同我们所说的对真正的音乐、大师的音乐的欣赏毫不相干。当我们这样争辩的时候，即使带着天真的骄傲，也是在接近一个无可争辩的真理。判断和口味是门类划分和预先设定的范式的囚徒。他们要我们相信，这里区分的是高贵的情感表达与建立在实验基础上的危险的手艺之间的差别：思想对工具。这是一个倾听的问题，它无法被调节了去适应不同的创造音乐的方法。我当然不会去宣扬一种普适的音乐，我认为那不过是一种超级市场的美学，这种蛊惑人心的宣传不敢打出自己的旗号，把自己装扮成具有良好的用心，来掩饰自己可怜的折衷和妥协。我很清楚--幸亏我有很多的经验，而且都是非常直接的--超越了某种复杂性之后，感知就迷失了方向，陷入绝望的混乱，变得厌烦并进入停滞状态。我的意思是说我可以保持批评性的反应，但是我的执著不是自动地从"当代性"本身产生出来的。某种对听觉的调制已经在发生了，这其实是很糟糕的，因为它超越了历史的限度。我们听巴洛克音乐，不是与瓦格纳和斯特劳斯音乐一个听法。但是为了让音乐文化能够相互认同和吸收，需要去适应标准，适应成规，而创新也要视所处的历史情境而与之相适应。文化在冒险中铸造、维持和播撒自身，带着两副面孔：有时是残暴、斗争和骚乱；有时是沉思、非暴力和沉默。这种文化的冒险不管呈现怎样的形式--最吵闹的并不总是最惊人的，但是最吵闹的肯定无可救药地是最肤浅的--忽略它是不行的，取消它则更为徒劳。我们甚至能声称，也许会有更令人难受的时代，创新和成规的合流更加困难，有些创新完全超越了人们所能容忍和"理性地"接受的程度；也许会有另外的时代，到时候又回复到更直接达成的秩序中去。所有这些现象的关系--个体与集体--是如此的复杂，以至于将它们严格地对应和分组是不可能的。我们会忍不住要说：先生们，打赌吧，相信"时间的态度"，请玩游戏，尽情地玩吧!否则，那该是多么地令人厌烦啊!Michel Foucault & Pierre Boulez: Contemporary Music and the Public MICHEL FOUCAULT. It is often said that contemporary music has drifted off track; that it has had a strange fate; that it has attained a degree of complexity which makes it inaccessible; that its techniques have set it on paths which are leading it further and further away. But on the contrary, what is striking to me is the multiplicity of links and relations between music and all the other elements of culture. There are several ways in which this is apparent. On the one hand, music has been much more sensitive to technological changes, much more closely bound to them than most of the other arts (with the exception perhaps of cinema). On the other hand, the evolution of these musics after Debussy or Stravinsky presents remarkable correlations with the evolution of painting. What is more, the theoretical problems which music has posed for itself, the way in which it has reflected on its language, its structures, and its material, depend on a question which has, I believe, spanned the entire twentieth century: the question of "form" which was that of Cézanne or the cubists, which was that of Schoenberg, which was also that of the Russian formalists or the School of Prague.I do not believe we should ask: with music at such a distance, how can we recapture it or repatriate it? But father: this music which is so close, so consubstantial with all our culture, how does it happen that we feel it, as it were, projected afar and placed at an almost insurmountable distance?PIERRE BOULEZ. Is the contemporary music "circuit" so different from the various "circuits" employed by symphonic music, chamber music, opera, Baroque music, all circuits so partitioned, so specialized that it's possible to ask if there really is a general culture? Acquaintance through recordings should, in principle, bring down those walls whose economic necessity is understandable, but one notices, on the contrary, that recordings reinforce specialization of the public as well as the performers. In the very organization of concerts or other productions, the forces which different types of music rely on more or less exclude a common organization, even polyvalence. Classical or romantic repertory implies a standardized format tending to include exceptions to this rule only if the economy of the whole is not disturbed by them, Baroque music necessarily implies not only a limited group, but instruments in keeping with the music played, musicians who have acquired a specialized knowledge of interpretation, based on studies of texts and theoretical works of the past. Contemporary music implies an approach involving new instrumental techniques, new notations, an aptitude for adapting to new performance situations. One could continue this enumeration and thus show the difficulties to be surmounted in passing from one domain to anther: difficulties of organization, of placing oneself in a different context, not to mention the difficulties of adapting places for such or such a kind of performance. Thus, there exists a tendency to form a larger or smaller society corresponding to each category of music, to establish a dangerously closed circuit among this society, its music, and its performers. Contemporary music does not escape this development; even if its attendance figures are proportionately weak, it does not escape the faults of musical society in general: it has its places, its rendezvous, its stars, its snobberies, its rivalries, its exclusivities; just like the other society, it has its market values, its quotes, its statistics. The different circles of music, if they are not Dante's, none the less reveal a prison system in which most fed at ease but whose constraints, on the contrary, painfully chafe others.MICHEL FOUCAULT. One must take into consideration the fact that for a very long time music has been tied to social rites and unified by them: religious music, chamber music; in the nineteenth century, the link between music and theatrical production in opera (not to mention the political or cultural meanings which the latter had in Germany or in Italy) was also an integrative factor.I believe that one cannot talk of the "cultural isolation" of contemporary music without soon correcting what one says of it by thinking about other circuits of music,With rock, for example, one has a completely inverse phenomenon. Not only is rock music (much more than jazz used to be) an integral part of the life of many people, but it is a cultural initiator: to like rock, to like a certain kind of rock rather than another, is also a way of life, a manner of reacting; it is a whole set of tastes and attitudes.Rock offers the possibility of a relation which is intense, strong, alive, "dramatic" (in that rock presents itself as a spectacle, that listening to it is an event and that it produces itself on stage), with a music that is itself impoverished, but through which the listener affirms himself; and with the other music, one has a frail, faraway, hothouse, problematical relation with an erudite music from which the cultivated public feels excluded.One cannot speak of a single relation of contemporary culture to music in general, but of a tolerance, more or less benevolent, with respect to a plurality of musics. Each is granted the "right" to existence, and this right is perceived as an equality of worth. Each is worth as much as the group which practices it or recognizes it.PIERRE BOULEZ. Will talking about musics in the plural and flaunting an eclectic ecumenicism solve the problem? It seems, on the contrary, that this will merely conjure it away - as do certain devotees of an advanced liberal society. All those musics are good, all those musics are nice. Ah! Pluralism! There's nothing like it for curing incomprehension. Love, each one of you in your corner, and each will love the others. Be liberal, be generous toward the tastes of others, and they will be generous to yours. Everything is good, nothing is bad; there aren't any values, but everyone is happy, This discourse, as liberating as it may wish to be, reinforces, on the contrary, the ghettos, comforts one's clear conscience for being in a ghetto, especially if from time to time one tours the ghettos of others. The economy is there to remind us, in case we get lost in this bland utopia: there are musics which bring in money and exist for commercial profit; there are musics that cost something, whose very concept has nothing to do with profit. No liberalism will erase this distinction.MICHEL FOUCAULT. I have the impression that many of the elements that are supposed to provide access to music actually impoverish our relationship with it. There is a quantitative mechanism working here. A certain rarity of relation to music could preserve an ability to choose what one hears, and thus a flexibility in listening. But the more frequent this relation is (radio, records, cassettes), the more familiarities it creates; habits crystallize; the most frequent becomes the most acceptable, and soon the only thing perceivable. It produces a "tracing" as the neurologists say.Clearly, the laws of the marketplace will readily apply to this simple mechanism. What is put at the disposition of the public is what the public hears. And what the public finds itself actually listening to, because it's offered up, reinforces a certain taste, underlines the limits of a well-defined listening capacity, defines more and more exclusively a schema for listening. Music had better satisfy this expectation, etc. So commercial productions, critics, concerts, everything that increases the contact of the public with music, risks making perception of the new more difficult.Of course the process is not unequivocal. Certainly increasing familiarity with music also enlarges the listening capacity and gives access to possible differentiations, but this phenomenon risks being only marginal; it must in any case remain secondary to the main impact of experience, if there is no real effort to derail familiarities.It goes without saying that I am not in favor of a rarefaction of the relation to music, but it must be understood that the everydayness of this relation, with all the economic stakes that are riding on it, can have this paradoxical effect of rigidifying tradition. It is not a matter of making access to music more rare, but of making its frequent appearances less devoted to habits and familiarities.PIERRE BOULEZ. We ought to note that not only is there a focus on the past, but even on the past in the past, as far as the performer is concerned. And this is of course how one attains ecstasy while listening to the interpretation of a certain classical work by a performer who disappeared decades ago; but ecstasy will reach orgasmic heights when one can refer to a performance of 20 July 1947 or of 30 December 1938. One sees a pseudo-culture of documentation taking shape, based on the exquisite hour and fugitive moment, which reminds us at once of the fragility and of the durability of the performer become immortal, rivaling now the immortality of the masterpiece. All the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin, all the powers of modem magic, what more could you want as an alibi for reproduction as opposed to real production? Modernity itself is this technical superiority we possess over former eras in being able to recreate the event. Ah! If we only had the first performance of the Ninth, even - especially - with all its flaws, or if only we could make Mozart's own delicious difference between the Prague and Vienna versions of Don Giovanni. . . . This historicizing carapace suffocates those who put it on, compresses them in an asphyxiating rigidity; the mephitic air they breathe constantly enfeebles their organism in relation to contemporary adventure. I imagine Fidelio glad to rest in his dungeon, or again I think of Plato's cave: a civilization of shadow and of shades.MICHEL FOUCAULT. Certainly listening to music becomes more difficult as its composition frees itself from any kind of schemas, signals, perceivable cues for a repetitive structure.In classical music, there is a certain transparency from the composition to the hearing. And even if many compositional features in Bach or Beethoven aren't recognizable by most listeners, there are always other features, important ones, which are accessible to them. But contemporary music, by trying to make each of its elements a unique event, makes any grasp or recognition by the listener difficult.PIERRE BOULEZ. Is there really only lack of attention, indifference on the part of the listener toward contemporary music? Might not the complaints so often articulated be due to laziness, to inertia, to the pleasant sensation of remaining in known territory? Berg wrote, already half a century ago, a text entitled "Why is Schonberg's music hard to understand?" The difficulties he described then are nearly the same as those we hear of now. Would they always have been the same? Probably, all novelty bruises the sensibilities of those unaccustomed to it. But it is believable that nowadays the communication of a work to a public presents some very specific difficulties. In classical and romantic music, which constitutes the principal resource of the familiar repertory, there are schemas which one obeys, which one can follow independently of the work itself, or rather which the work must necessarily exhibit. The movements of a symphony are defined in their form and in their character, even in their rhythmic life; they are distinct from one another, most of the time actually separated by a pause, sometimes tied by a transition that can be spotted. The vocabulary itself is based on "classified" chords, well-named: you don't have to analyze them to know what they are and what function they have. They have the efficacy and security of signals; they recur from one piece to another, always assuming the same appearance and the same functions. Progressively, these reassuring elements have disappeared from "serious" music. Evolution has gone in the direction of an ever more radical renewal, as much in the form of works as in their language. Musical works have tended to become unique events, which do have antecedents, but are not reducible to any guiding schema admitted, a priori, by all; this creates, certainly, a handicap for immediate comprehension. The listener is asked to familiarize himself with the course of the work and for this to listen to it a certain number of times. When the course of the work is familiar, comprehension of the work, perception of what it wants to express, can find a propitious terrain to bloom in. There are fewer and fewer chances for the first encounter to ignite perception and comprehension. There can be a spontaneous connection with it, through the force of the message, the quality of the writing, the beauty of the sound, the readability of the cues, but deep understanding can only come from repeated hearings, from remaking the course of the work, this repetition taking the place of an accepted schema such as was practiced previously.The schemas - of vocabulary, of form - which had been evacuated from what is called serious music (sometimes called learned music) have taken refuge in certain popular forms, in the objects of musical consumption. There, one still creates according to the genres, the accepted typologies. Conservatism is not necessarily found where it is expected: it is undeniable that a certain conservatism of form and language is at the base of all the commercial productions adopted with great enthusiasm by generations who want to be anything but conservative. It is a paradox of our times that played or sung protest transmits itself by means of an eminently subornable vocabulary, which does not fail to make itself known: commercial success evacuates protest.MICHEL FOUCAULT. And on this point there is perhaps a divergent evolution of music and painting in the twentieth century. Painting, since Cézanne, has tended to make itself transparent to the very act of painting: the act is made visible, insistent, definitively present in the picture, whether it be by the use of elementary signs, or by traces of its own dynamic. Contemporary music on the contrary offers to its hearing only the outer surface of its composition.Hence there is something difficult and imperious in listening to this music. Hence the fact that each hearing presents itself as an event which the listener attends, and which he must accept. There are no cues which permit him to expect it and recognize it. He listens to it happen. This is a very difficult mode of attention, one which is in contradiction to the familiarities woven by repeated hearing of classical music.The cultural insularity of music today is not simply the consequence of deficient pedagogy or propagation. It would be too facile to groan over the conservatories or complain about the record companies, Things are more serious. Contemporary music owes this unique situation to its very composition. In this sense, it is willed. It is not a music that tries to be familiar; it is fashioned to preserve its cutting edge. One may repeat it, but it does not repeat itself. In this sense, one cannot come back to it as to an object. It always pops up on frontiers.PIERRE BOULEZ. Since it wants to be in such a perpetual situation of discovery - new domains of sensibility, experimentation with new material - is contemporary music condemned to remain a Kamchatka (Baudelaire, Sainte-Beuve, remember?) reserved for the intrepid curiosity of infrequent explorers? It is remarkable that the most reticent listeners should be those who have acquired their musical culture exclusively in the stores of the past, indeed of a particular past; and the most open - only because they are the most ignorant? - are the listeners with a sustained interest in other means of expression, especially the plastic arts. The "foreigners" the most receptive? A dangerous connection which would tend to prove that current music would detach itself from the "true" musical culture in order to belong to a domain both vaster and more vague, where amateurism would preponderate, in critical judgment as in creation. Don't call that "music" - then we are willing to leave you your plaything; that is in the jurisdiction of a different appreciation, having nothing to do with the appreciation we reserve for true music, the music of the masters. Then this argument has been made, even in its arrogant naiveté, it approaches an irrefutable truth. Judgment and taste are prisoners of categories, of pre-established schemas which are referred to at all costs. Not, as they would have us believe, that the distinction is between an aristocracy of sentiments, a nobility of expression, and a chancy craft based on experimentation: thought versus tools. It is, rather, a matter of a listening that could not be modulated or adapted to different ways of inventing music. I certainly am not going to preach in favor of an ecumenicism of musics, which seems to me nothing but a supermarket aesthetic, a demagogy that dare not speak its name and decks itself with good intentions the better to camouflage the wretchedness of its compromise. Moreover, I do not reject the demands of quality in the sound as well as in the composition: aggression and provocation, bricolage and bluff are but insignificant and harmless palliatives. I am fully aware - thanks to many experiences, which could not have been more direct - that beyond a certain complexity perception finds itself disoriented in a hopelessly entangled chaos, that it gets bored and hangs up. This amounts to saying that I can keep my critical reactions and that my adherence is not automatically derived from the fact of "contemporaneity" itself. Certain modulations of hearing are already occurring, rather badly as a matter of fact, beyond particular historical limits. One doesn't listen to Baroque music - especially lesser works - as one listens to Wagner or Strauss; one doesn't listen to the polyphony of the Ars Nova as one listens to Debussy or Ravel. But in this latter case, how many listeners are ready to vary their "mode of being," musically speaking? And yet in order for musical culture, all musical culture, to be assimilable, there need only be this adaptation to criteria, and to conventions, which invention complies with according to the historical moment it occupies. This expansive respiration of the ages is at the opposite extreme from the asthmatic wheezings the fanatics make us hear from spectral reflections of the past in a tarnished mirror. A culture forges, sustains, and transmits itself in an adventure with a double face: sometimes brutality, struggle, turmoil; sometimes meditation, nonviolence, silence. Whatever form the adventure may take - the most surprising is not always the noisiest, but the noisiest is not irremediably the most superficial - it is useless to ignore it, and still more useless to sequestrate it. One might go so far as to say there are probably uncomfortable periods when the coincidence of invention and convention is more difficult, when some aspect of invention seems absolutely to go beyond what we can tolerate or "reasonably" absorb; and that there are other periods when things relapse to a more immediately accessible order. The relations among all these phenomena - individual and collective - are so complex that applying rigorous parallelisms or groupings to them is impossible. One would rather be tempted to say: gentlemen, place your bets, and for the rest, trust in the air du temps. But, please, play! Play! Otherwise, what infinite secretions of boredom!Foucault, Michel and Pierre Boulez. 1985. Contemporary Music and the Public. Perspectives of New Music, 24 (1 Fall-Winter), pp.6-12. 

有些昆曲剧目因为原本湮没,来历不明,艺人口传心授时又常加改动,误标戏名。这里对《铁冠图》、《五代兴隆传》和《西川图》等15个剧目进行探考,阐明原委。

元末杨维桢的戏剧理论主要有三个方面的内容:元曲源流论、戏剧本体论和元剧时代特征论。其中,以《诗经》、《离骚》为元曲之源,认为戏剧便是借助“声文”表现“典故”以“警人视听”,否认元剧是“治世之音”等观点,皆有其现实针对性或理论深刻性。然因其是以“复古”为理论号召、以古乐府为创作专攻的文学家,故而使之戏剧研究时常处于一种低调论说、保守评价的状态中,这似乎可成为评价杨氏戏剧思想的一个基本出发点。